“It’s truly in bad taste to have a large depiction of a gun in a dorm space—especially when students of color also reside there,” states Ochiagha. “Now let’s imagine there were countless videos of white teenagers, white teenagers that look like you, or your brother or your sister, get shot to death by police officers. Imagine scrolling down Facebook everyday and seeing a new video of the same thing, over and over again. Really put yourself in that headspace. Then ask yourself whether it’s the brightest idea to have white teenagers, who have a very real fear of getting shot, see a large gun every time they want to get food from the dinning [sic] hall.”

Ochiagha continues, “My Black Mental and Emotional Health Matters. I shouldn’t be reminded every time I leave my dorm room of how easy my life can be taken away, or how many Black lives have been taken away because of police brutality. This is emotionally triggering for very obvious reasons. And if you want to belittle or invalidate by [sic] black experience, I live in Atherton, come thru, let’s have that idiotic conversation.”

You’re thinking: please oh please, just this one time, somebody tell this nitwit Social Justice Warrior to get stuffed, that he cannot use his black privilege to tell other people what kind of art they can and cannot put on the wall.

But you know that’s not how it works. From the article:

Spier plans to modify her mural. “I spoke with Gregory earlier and we agreed on a modification that preserves the integrity of the original piece while avoiding any potentially triggering content—it’s a change I was absolutely happy to make in the interest of creating a safe and inclusive environment for everyone in my community,” Spier told the Claremont Independent. “I have absolutely no right to decide whether or not my artwork is offensive to marginalized communities—nor does anyone else in a position of privilege, racial or otherwise.”

I don’t know whether to pity Spier or to be revolted by her supine eagerness to satisfy and completely unreasonable request made by someone, simply because of the color of the complainer’s skin. It’s one thing for a gutless campus administration to silence free speech and expression on campus, but when the speakers and artists can be talked into silencing themselves, you know things are pretty damn hopeless. Conformists to the marrow, the lot.

MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

Hide 54 comments

54 Responses to SJW Art Commissars

“Someone should send the stupid little twit a gift wrapped watermelon.” Yes because that’s so adult of you and not racist at all.

“My 11 year old son asked me what white privilege was. I told him to substitute the word achievement for privilege. All became clear.”

Some of these reactions are exactly the opposite of what a reasoned response to these histrionic SJW outcries about minutiae require. There is such a thing as white privilege. The issues are that:

a.) The use of the word privilege is tough since most folks don’t fully understand what that word actually means — often equating it with wealth and status

b.) It has been co-opted from its original intent — to describe basic social inequality as structural or embedded at birth via arbitrary distinctions — into a mechanism to deny debate or discourse.

As an ardent First Amendment defending liberal I find much of the SJW narrative/actions challenging to engage with and dangerous. I’m equal parts critical theorist and structural functionalist. So on the one hand I agree with the need to challenge the status quo, examine structural inequalities and work towards change from within communities. I’m also aware that at some point the analysis has to end and we have to get to work to address it.

Part of that work is finding common ground and that requires dialogue with those we may not agree with on many issues.

In the early 1990’s and Oliver North came to speak at my University in the deep South. The histrionics displayed by my liberal brethren was astonishing but predictable — the gnashing of teeth, contortions, screaming, yelling, face painting, sings, puppets, eyes bulging — you’d have thought Pol Pot had arrived with human skull shoulder pads.

I knew then I wasn’t a typical “liberal.” I’m no fan of Oliver North but perspective puts him at the bottom of the list of folks to be that angry about. I’d certainly argue that the out of proportion vitriol, hysteria and knee jerk flailing hasn’t changed all that much in 25+ years. It’s always been kind of nut job.

But today Oliver North would never even get on the campus — and that’s very scary to me. Part of the education experience must be facing one’s own preconceptions and finding reasoned ways to challenge/reconcile ideas one vehemently disagrees with.

At the heart of the SJW movement are some interesting but terrifying arguments. It’s one thing to critique freedom of speech as an inherently biased concept often only allows those in power the actual ability to exercise it. That’s somewhat true. It’s another to call for putting more qualifications on the first amendment. If the interpretation of the First Amendment had been static for over the last 200 years maybe, but it hasn’t. It has progressed almost exponentially.

For some — like possibly yourself Rod — too much. We can agree to disagree. But the SJW notion doesn’t allow that option. To agree to disagree.

A work entitled “Freeing the First Amendment: Critical Perspectives on the First Amendment” by David S. Allen is a typical example of this “re-thinking” that enables the SJW. Here’s some gems from it:

“Liberalism’s attention to, or obsession with, individualism has not been without its benefits in freeing people from the direct constraints of authoritarian powers; it is important to remember that two centuries ago people in England were tortured for speech critical against the government, and that well into this century government officials at all levels in the United States did not hesitate to throw into jails socialists, radicals, union organizers and others deemed to be stirring up trouble through speech.”

Ok fine that’s all true, great we’ve expanded speech to meet the ideal of the First Amendment — awesome!!

“The point we press, however, is that liberalism also protects the individuality of some at the expense of others, whose subordinate status sometimes negates the possibilities of individual expression. The vague charge, that collective action necessarily leads to totalitarianism — so central to liberal attacks on hate-speech codes — not only is hyperbolic but obscures the suppression that is inherent in the workings of a liberal system in an unequal society, where power and oppression go unnamed.”

Oh dear, that’s not good.

“If one accepts that speech is not special then the considerable energy devoted to scholars to identifying the line between speech and action is of questionable value…The law punishes a number of types of pure speech — blackmail, threats, conspiracy, participation in criminal acts by speaking — without concern for First Amendment implications…”

Ah yes such a waste of time — here comes more bad news.

“From our view, the harm from a variety of other kinds of speech — sexist or racist insults, pornography, and the general category of hate speech — is equally clear and worthy of society’s concern.”

It goes down hill from there.

“Forms of expression/actions that may seem harmless on the surface — such as mainstream images in journalism, advertising, and entertainment that sexualize, trivialize and marginalize women — are also of great concern. That does not mean that laws must be passed in each case to limit those expressions/actions, but that each deserves scrutiny…we argue the First Amendment should focus on:

the protection and facilitation of communication rather than expression, and the well-functioning community, rather than the soul baring, expressive individual of conscience, as its inherent ideal.”

I’m fully aware that for some conservatives this view point might be somewhat appealing. In reality it should make ones blood run cold. There has never been a time in history when limiting speech has led to anything but tyranny and death. That’s not hyperbole as Davis suggests. It’s historical fact — just look at the 20th century and the untold millions dead. It’s shockingly naive to think otherwise given the vast majority of human history which is steeped in suppression, violence and tragedy.

I’m a radical First Amendment liberal. Unless it involves children, animals or outright victim criminality I’m against restricting speech or content in any way. Clearly we disagree on much of this, but Davis and others authors perspectives are at the heart of SJW thinking. These concepts embolden petty tyranny. They elevate minutiae over macro problems that need desperate attention. They allow arbitrary suppression of discourse by fiat self interpretation of what constitutes “offense.”

Back to Oliver North. When he was charged the American Civil Liberties Union defended him vigorously. They did so because they value the importance of defending the basic rights understood in the modern interpretation of the constitution. To his credit North has always thanked them and cherished their impartiality on the issue, even when it may not have been politically expedient for him to do so. The ACLU is exemplar of what holding to an ideal is — however imperfect that ideal.

Rod I hope you’ll spend more time on the specific examples of whats underpinning the SJW movement on campuses — a terrifying rethinking of the First Amendment that should unite thoughtful liberals and conservatives vociferously against it — instead of the symptoms manifest in their “actions.” We need reasoned well thought out empathetic but strong rebuttals and not the hyperbole present in this response thread.

I don’t know whether to pity Spier or to be revolted by her supine eagerness to satisfy and completely unreasonable request made by someone, simply because of the color of the complainer’s skin.

I let this one simmer for a while before attempting to respond. I agree with most of your critique of the narcissistic language and thought process evident in many of the pronouncements and actions of those you have been pleased to designate “SJW.” Some of that has noticeable in Gregory Ochiagha’s choice of words. Selena Spiers’s choice of words is a bit supine.

However, I do not dismiss out of hand the basic point that art work involving a pointed gun may not be the most appropriate thing to have on the wall of a dorm. It is appropriate that the artist consider how their work, and its placement, impacts those who walk by it, see it, live around it.

I live in a relatively quiet area of Milwaukee, which means the two gunshots I think I heard last night were the first in several months, nothing gets stolen from my garage unless I leave the door open for several hours inadvertently, etc. There are people I see at church who live in areas where someone turns up shot to death several times a year within a few blocks.

If someone showed a slide of a Remington rifle during a class, because it was relevant to the subject matter, I wouldn’t give the time of day to plaintive demands for “trigger warnings.” Life is real, if you’re not, that’s your problem.

But a dorm hallway… that’s almost like someone painting something you didn’t commission in your living room. So some modest consideration is in order. Apparently the artist has worked out an accommodation that satisfies the student concerned, and does not obliterate her vision.

That seems to me a rather wholesome outcome, however much one might deplore some of the associated language.

Spier’s reply reminds me of Dmitri Shostakovich’s response to Pravda’s condemnation of his opera “Lady Macbeth”. He subtitled his Fifth symphony “A Soviet artist’s creative response to justified criticism”. Spier capitulated in the same way. But what choice did she have? The Soviets used exile and execution to keep artists in line with party dogma. The Cult of Social Justice uses protest, social ostracisation and intimidation to do the same thing.